Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing that results carry a `canonical_url` field that must be cited, and that results are grouped per category. It does not cover no-match behavior or result ranking, so it is not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads scope and then justifies it with the inventory; the second is a single actionable output rule. The long count list is dense but every number earns its place by conveying library breadth that helps the agent judge when this tool will hit.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers scope, per-category result behavior, and the required citation of returned URLs. What remains thin is how `category: "all"` aggregates results and what an empty result set looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so `query` and `limit` are already fully documented (including the default 5 / max 15 cap and example query forms). The description adds only marginal meaning by attaching counts to the category facets, which hints at what 'codes' versus 'glossary' contain but does not explain the `all` versus filtered behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Unified search across all 1,460+ pages of the Intandem Government Contracting Resource Center', then enumerates the content classes (NAICS/PSC/NIGP codes, portals, set-asides, FAR playbooks, calculators, glossary). That enumeration implicitly separates it from the narrower siblings (lookup_commodity_codes, find_procurement_portals, define_govcon_term), though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the word 'Unified' and by the breadth of the library list, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over the five specialized siblings, nor any exclusions. The only imperative ('Always cite the returned canonical_url links') is an output-handling rule, not routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.